I've asked for a slow cooker for Christmas from my parentals. Dad informs me that there are some on special at Harris Scarfe. They are a Kambrook 6 litre or a George Foreman 3.5 litre.
Now, I like the look of the Kambrook one as it's stainless steel and a quick check on the Choice website indicates that was recommended as a 'best buy'. My only hesitation is that it's 6 litres. Our family is only me and husband at the moment with a baby very soon. However I'm certainly not cooking for a tribe any time soon.
Is 6 litres too big for two adults? Or can you cook for 2 people and not just fill it up so much?
I know I can make more to freeze things / lunches but I'm wondering if the big one is just too over the top.
I'd get the bigger one..I have I think it's a 4 or 5 litre one and it really isn't that big...you can always freeze the leftovers, or have them for lunch or dinner the next day
We have a 6L and its great for making up heaps for future meals (which is a lifesaver when bubs first comes home!). I bought the 6L knowing it was just for me, DS and the girls (when they get here) just cz Id prefer the 'overkill' of 6L VS the possibility of not enough with the 3.5L
HTH
Id get the big one. We have a 6 litre and if we use it we make heaps and freeze the left overs for a night when we dont have time to cook. Plus if you want to do a whole chook or something it will fit better in the bigger slow cooker.
Get the bigger one as a smaller one is useless for doing a chook, lamb shanks or a leg of lamb/roast beef/silverside. Slow cooking is so much more than just casseroles, soups and stews these days and you will get more benefit in the long run from a larger one. There is also the benefit of having leftovers you can freeze if you just don't feel like cooking one night or need something quick and easy to get out of the freezer. That said I would also like a 3.5lt one myself so I can do desserts.
Slow Cookers - 3.5 L or 6 L?
Reply With Quote
)
Bookmarks